Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Protocol

Rational and design of an individual participant data meta-analysis of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain—a protocol

Authors: A. de Zoete, M. R. de Boer, M. W. van Tulder, S. M. Rubinstein, M. Underwood, J. A. Hayden, J. Kalter, R. Ostelo

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of pain and disability, resulting in a major socioeconomic impact. The Cochrane Review which examined the effect of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for chronic LBP concluded that SMT is moderately effective, but was based on conventional meta-analysis of aggregate data. The use of individual participant data (IPD) from trials allows for a more precise estimate of the treatment effect and has the potential to identify moderators and/or mediators. The aim is (1) to assess the overall treatment effect of SMT for primary and secondary outcomes in adults with chronic LBP, (2) to determine possible moderation of baseline characteristics on treatment effect, (3) to identify characteristics of intervention (e.g., manipulation/mobilization) that influence the treatment effect, and (4) to identify mediators of treatment effects.

Methods

All trials included in the Cochrane Review on SMT for chronic LBP will be included which were published after the year 2000, and the search will be updated. No restrictions will be placed on the type of comparison or size of the study. Primary outcomes are pain intensity and physical functioning. A dataset will be compiled consisting of individual trials and variables included according to a predefined coding scheme. Variables to be included are descriptive of characteristics of the study, treatment, comparison, participant characteristics, and outcomes at all follow-up periods. A one-stage approach with a mixed model technique based on the intention-to-treat principle will be used for the analysis. Subsequent analyses will focus on treatment effect moderators and mediators.

Discussion

We will analyze IPD for LBP trials in which SMT is one of the interventions. IPD meta-analysis has been shown to be more reliable and valid than aggregate data meta-analysis, although this difference might also be attributed to the number of studies that can be used or the amount of data that can be utilized. Therefore, this project may identify important gaps in our knowledge with respect to prognostic factors of treatment effects.

Systematic review registration:

PROSPERO CRD42015025714
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hoy DG, Smith E, Cross M, Sanchez-Riera L, Buchbinder R, Blyth FM, et al. The global burden of musculoskeletal conditions for 2010: an overview of methods. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):982–9.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, Ezzati M, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2163–96.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2:CD008112.
5.
Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(11):871–81.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1, CD000447.
7.
Sandoz R. The significance of the manipulative crack and of other articular noises. Ann Swiss Chiro Assoc. 1969;4:47–68.
8.
Evans DW. Mechanisms and effects of spinal high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust manipulation: previous theories. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2002;25(4):251–62.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Khalsa PS, Eberhart A, Cotler A, Nahin R. The 2005 conference on the biology of manual therapies. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006;29(5):341–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans R, Kawchuk G, Dagenais S. Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization. Spine J. 2008;8(1):213–25.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, Koes BW, Croft PR, Hay E. Treatment-based subgroups of low back pain: a guide to appraisal of research studies and a summary of current evidence. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):181–91.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Foster NE, Dziedzic KS, van der Windt DA, Fritz JM, Hay EM. Research priorities for non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal problems: nationally and internationally agreed recommendations. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Huijnen IP, Rusu AC, Scholich S, Meloto CB, Diatchenko L. Subgrouping of low back pain patients for targeting treatments: evidence from genetic, psychological, and activity-related behavioral approaches. Clin J Pain. 2015;31(2):123–32.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Underwood M, Mistry D, Lall R, Lamb S. Predicting response to a cognitive-behavioral approach to treating low back pain: secondary analysis of the BeST data set. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(9):1271–9.CrossRef
17.
Debray TP, Moons KG, van Valkenhoef G, Efthimiou O, Hummel N, Groenwold RH, et al. Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis: a review of the methodology. Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(4):293–309.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Rothwell PM. Treating individuals: from randomised trials to personalised medicine. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2007.
19.
Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Gurung T, Ellard DR, Mistry D, Patel S, Underwood M. Identifying potential moderators for response to treatment in low back pain: a systematic review. Physiotherapy. 2015;101(3):243–51.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Hidalgo B, Detrembleur C, Hall T, Mahaudens P, Nielens H. The efficacy of manual therapy and exercise for different stages of non-specific low back pain: an update of systematic reviews. J Man Manipulative Ther. 2014;22(2):59–74.CrossRef
23.
Merepeza A. Effects of spinal manipulation versus therapeutic exercise on adults with chronic low back pain: a literature review. J Can Chiropr Assoc. 2014;58(4):456–66.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Editorial Board CBRG. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(18):1929–41.CrossRef
25.
Buffart LM, Kalter J, Chinapaw MJ, Heymans MW, Aaronson NK, Courneya KS, et al. Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS): rationale and design for meta-analyses of individual patient data of randomized controlled trials that evaluate the effect of physical activity and psychosocial interventions on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors. Syst rev. 2013;2:75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Pincus T, Kent P, Bronfort G, Loisel P, Pransky G, Hartvigsen J. Twenty-five years with the biopsychosocial model of low back pain-is it time to celebrate? A report from the twelfth international forum for primary care research on low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(24):2118–23.CrossRef
27.
Pincus T, Burton AK, Vogel S, Field AP. A systematic review of psychological factors as predictors of chronicity/disability in prospective cohorts of low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(5):E109–20.CrossRef
28.
Pincus T, Miles C, Froud R, Underwood M, Carnes D, Taylor SJ. Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: a consensus study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Ailliet L, Rubinstein SM, Knol D, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC. Somatization is associated with worse outcome in a chiropractic patient population with neck pain and low back pain. Man Ther. 2016;21:170–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Hill JC, Dunn KM, Lewis M, Mullis R, Main CJ, Foster NE, et al. A primary care back pain screening tool: identifying patient subgroups for initial treatment. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(5):632–41.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Rubinstein SM, Knol DL, Leboeuf-Yde C, de Koekkoek TE, Pfeifle CE, van Tulder MW. Predictors of a favorable outcome in patients treated by chiropractors for neck pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(13):1451–8.CrossRef
32.
33.
Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P, Waddell G, Croft P, Von Korff M, et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(1):90–4.CrossRef
34.
Salaffi F, Sarzi-Puttini P, Ciapetti A, Atzeni F. Clinimetric evaluations of patients with chronic widespread pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011;25(2):249–70.CrossRefPubMed
35.
MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis: Routledge; 2008
36.
Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav Res. 2007;42(1):185–227.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. New York: Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309.
38.
O'Keeffe M, Purtill H, Kennedy N, O'Sullivan P, Dankaerts W, Tighe A, et al. Individualised cognitive functional therapy compared with a combined exercise and pain education class for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2015;5(6), e007156.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Resche-Rigon M, White IR, Bartlett JW, Peters SA, Thompson SG, Group P-IS. Multiple imputation for handling systematically missing confounders in meta-analysis of individual participant data. Stat Med. 2013;32(28):4890–905.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Quartagno M, Carpenter JR. Multiple imputation for IPD meta-analysis: allowing for heterogeneity and studies with missing covariates. Stat Med. 2016;35(17):2938–54.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Metadata
Title
Rational and design of an individual participant data meta-analysis of spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain—a protocol
Authors
A. de Zoete
M. R. de Boer
M. W. van Tulder
S. M. Rubinstein
M. Underwood
J. A. Hayden
J. Kalter
R. Ostelo
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0413-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Systematic Reviews 1/2017 Go to the issue

Protocol

Olfactive stimulation interventions for managing procedural pain in preterm and full-term neonates: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Ecological validity of cost-effectiveness models of universal HPV vaccination: a protocol for a systematic review

Protocol

Parent experiences and information needs relating to procedural pain in children: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Strategies to improve the quality of life of persons post-stroke: protocol of a systematic review

Protocol

Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients—protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Protocol

The HIV Care Cascade from HIV diagnosis to viral suppression in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis protocol